Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe introduction to this special issue of Worldviews goes back to the first European encounters with the New World as a way of opening up a discussion about the nature of viewing animals. I argue that, just as the Europeans transformed this New World into a recognisable one in the sixteenth century, so too do we constantly transform the natural world that we view. The process of comprehension is offered as classification followed by observation, then representation, and all of these elements of our engagements with animals take place, I argue, in particular contexts: historical, geographical, cultural, intellectual. The critic "reading" animals, and reading human observations of animals must take these factors into consideration when thinking about the act of engagement.

Argues for a revised theory of urban ecology that would take into account the distribution & interaction of plant & animal populations. It is asserted that traditional theory of urban ecology is concerned with the inhospitability of cities & improvements in landscape & ambience, based on a superficial understanding of nature. Urban society does not adapt to nature, but destroys it, creating a need for an urban ecology in which humans learn to develop a greater respect for nature. It is concluded that urban ecology theory is obligated to make apparent the inherent contradictions between humans & nature, since the city itself destroys nature, & artificial landscaping is insufficient to mitigate that contradiction. M. Wagner

Abstract
Although animals have served as subjects and objects of religion since the Paleolithic, they are often omitted from standard religious studies courses. In this article, I discuss some best practices for introducing students to the study of animals and religion. After outlining some of the benefits of teaching about animals and religion, I explain the pros and cons of the two main approaches: by tradition or by topic. The majority of the article discusses some of the most important topics to include, as well as how best to approach several of them in terms of pedagogy and media. The final section explains the importance of bringing real animals into courses like this, and offers a variety of experiential education techniques for doing so, including contemplative practices.

While more than ever we are discussing animal rights and considering the possibility to extend the circle of our moral consideration, we are also more than ever inflicting suffering on more animals than in any time in history. This is especially the case for farm animals. This article aims to demonstrate that introducing animal-based measures into the legal system can be a practical and realistic step towards changing the familiar perspective of farm animals as mere commodities into the sentient beings they are. Currently, legislation on farm animals builds on what are called resource-based measures. These measures are not based on the animals but on their environment and the conditions in which the animals are living. They are very compatible with the legal system being relatively easy to assess, less subjective and highly repeatable. However, compliance with resource-based measures does not always mean good animal welfare, since these measures are generally considered to be less well correlated to the experiences of the animal. Animal-based measures, on the other hand, measure the state of the animal based on the actual animal, its behaviour (e.g. repetitive behaviour, human-animal relationship) and/or appearance (posture, facial expression, body condition). A change where laws on animals actually require looking at the animals has the potential to improve the relationship to the animals and is an essential shift towards farm animals being regarded as someone and not something. By acknowledging animals as whole sentient beings, we do not just see a complex system of "behaviours" (e.g. walking), but first and foremost we see a "behaver", a dynamic living being, whose movements are always meaningful and psychological expressive.

Mammal bone charms held a special place in the culture of the Finno-Ugrian people of the Perm Cis-Urals. Apart from the drilled hole, these bones were not treated in any way. Analysis of charms unearthed in medieval settlements and burial sites showed that particular parts of the mammal's skeleton were used – mandibles of fur animals (marten, beaver, fox) and teeth, as well as talus bones of beavers and small cattle. Other bones, such as bears' ungual phalanxes, otters' penile bones, martens' and hares' lower extremities and reindeer's prongs, were less common. As for the teeth, they comprise the incisors of large ungulate animals (cattle, horses, moose deer) and the fangs of a wider range of species (martens, foxes, dogs, horses, pigs, and bears). In terms of species, there are parts of skeletons of both domestic animals (big and small cattle, horses, less commonly dogs and pigs) and wild animals (moose deer, bears, martens, foxes, beavers, otters, and hares). The finds from the burial sites showed that bear jaws and fangs, as well as beaver talus bones, were usually worn on belts, while marten and fox fangs were typically part of women's necklaces. Judging by the age and sex of the persons buried with these charms, they were the most vulnerable members of their community – children, old people and women. Charms could not have any connection with any cults or faiths cultivated within a given community, since kinds of charms such as bear fangs and claws, beaver talus bones and teeth of certain animals were widespread, their popularity extremely scattered in terms of time and space. Mammal bone charms were seen as personal helpers and were associated with superstitions rather than faith.